Hey everyone...
I just needed to vent... I'm sure some of you are feeling the pain that I am. I remember years ago when I said wow wouldn't it be crazy to write my own os. So you start to think about it and of course we are all as green as half the guys here but you read and read and read and learn and eventually get somewhere. As you advance you get to watch hundreds of other projects start and most likely die as you are still working on yours. Then you wonder will this be a one man team forever.... how far do you need to go before gain other developers.... But I have accepted the fact that support just isn't out there because everyone wants to start from the top and make it on their own. Even though they haven't yet realized that a high precentage of all projects out there are dead.
I mean come on you can gain a huge following of people who want to play as I have but where is the developer support?
-Christopher
Frustrated....
-
Anton
RE:Frustrated....
If you want your os to prosper, then you need to give people what they want, not what you want. I mean, if you os, is just a copy cat, then ofcourse nobody will need it, but if the web sever ran on your os works months and months without getting attacked, and stalled, then you have a chance 
You need to prove that you your os is better then Windows or Linux,...Only then developers will come and join.
Anton.
You need to prove that you your os is better then Windows or Linux,...Only then developers will come and join.Anton.
-
Moose
RE:Frustrated....
If your OS is a sourceforge project then you can announce that you want developers through sourceforge.
Moose
Moose
-
TheUbu
RE:Frustrated....
We thought about sourceforge then decided to maybe stay away from it there are lots of opensource linux zealots out there which sometimes tend to bring things into the wrong direction....
But you are all right about something you do need to prove its better problem is if you are at a point where you are better.... Then you don't really need people to just dive in because you would have much much much of the work completed no?
-Christopher
But you are all right about something you do need to prove its better problem is if you are at a point where you are better.... Then you don't really need people to just dive in because you would have much much much of the work completed no?
-Christopher
-
ASHLEY4
RE:Frustrated....
I think that most people start with the idea,That they will be the next linux,it is not going to happen,things have moved on .
I tryed to find the OS that i'm making,but could not ,so i have had to make it myself and if i wanted it, May be other's do ?.
If i wanted a desk-top i would use linux,If you want to succeed, do not make a OS like xp,linux etc.
DO THIS, There is a secret that a lot of big co do not want you to know, It is that multi tasking is ****!,There OS's are built to use it,So they have to push it.
eg:
In the early days of pc's, processor's cost £3000, what do you do to run more than one program ,you split it's time up over many programs, you multi-task,That same processor now cost £10 what should you do now ?.
What you should do is give each program its own processor.
I have built a 10GHz using this method(multiple base,1keyboard,1 monitor etc),For the same price of a 3GHz from "dell".
This is a example of how it could work say for games, virtual reality glasses, each processor has a camera angle, when you turn your head it switch's camera angle,this would give you top quality image's in a virtual reality world,for the price of a normal pc.
By make your os do this now you would be ready.
The question is would you want to help program this OS ?.
ASHLEY4.
I tryed to find the OS that i'm making,but could not ,so i have had to make it myself and if i wanted it, May be other's do ?.
If i wanted a desk-top i would use linux,If you want to succeed, do not make a OS like xp,linux etc.
DO THIS, There is a secret that a lot of big co do not want you to know, It is that multi tasking is ****!,There OS's are built to use it,So they have to push it.
eg:
In the early days of pc's, processor's cost £3000, what do you do to run more than one program ,you split it's time up over many programs, you multi-task,That same processor now cost £10 what should you do now ?.
What you should do is give each program its own processor.
I have built a 10GHz using this method(multiple base,1keyboard,1 monitor etc),For the same price of a 3GHz from "dell".
This is a example of how it could work say for games, virtual reality glasses, each processor has a camera angle, when you turn your head it switch's camera angle,this would give you top quality image's in a virtual reality world,for the price of a normal pc.
By make your os do this now you would be ready.
The question is would you want to help program this OS ?.
ASHLEY4.
-
JAAman
RE:Frustrated....
WHAT????
multi-tasking is the single greatest advancement in computer history!!!
I frequently (read: USUALLY) have 30-40 programs running at once -- and thats when I'm NOT programming
just had to say that
multi-tasking is the single greatest advancement in computer history!!!
I frequently (read: USUALLY) have 30-40 programs running at once -- and thats when I'm NOT programming
just had to say that
-
Moose
RE:Frustrated....
Also, a single task does not mean a single thread.
Take a look through Windows task manager, how many task are running compared to actual processes being executed.
Moose
Take a look through Windows task manager, how many task are running compared to actual processes being executed.
Moose
-
ASHLEY4
RE:Frustrated....
Moose, I know the xbox is multi threading,but not multi tasking.
ASHLEY4.
ASHLEY4.
-
ASHLEY4
RE:Frustrated....
1) I would love to know the names of 30-40 programs,That you must have runing.
2) If you think that giving 1 person, 10 jobs to do, Is better than 10 people doing 10 jobs,then be a sheep!.
ASHLEY4.
2) If you think that giving 1 person, 10 jobs to do, Is better than 10 people doing 10 jobs,then be a sheep!.
ASHLEY4.
-
Moose
RE:Frustrated....
Have you ever looked at the windows task manager process view.
Have you not seen the percentage used by the 'System Idle Task'.
Let me give you a hint, it uses 99% of the cpu's time. Most common apps you use use very little cpu time since their waiting for YOUR actions most of the time. They are event driven.
So by what you're saying, on the average windows user, if i had 10 processors for each of my 10 tasks, all 10 processors would be spending 99% of their cpu time dormant.
Having 10 processors too, i have never seen a 'cheap' motherboard that can support 10 processors. In fact, i have never seen a commercial motherboard that even supports more than 3 processors.
And the number of tasks people run is never the same. I prefer to buy hardware seperately than buying a package pc, you get what you want, does that mean i have to consider what tasks im running, then but say 10 processors.
Then what happens when i want to run another task, do i have to buy another processor?
>> 2) If you think that giving 1 person, 10 jobs to do, Is better than 10 people doing 10 jobs.
Yes, i agree, its the most efficient solution but having 10 processors wouldn't be feasible without it being for a dedicated purpose. And knowing you're only running 10 tasks.
Consider the average Windows user, completely oblivious to computer terminology and technology. Do you really expect them to install their own processors when they need to run more tasks?
Moose.
Have you not seen the percentage used by the 'System Idle Task'.
Let me give you a hint, it uses 99% of the cpu's time. Most common apps you use use very little cpu time since their waiting for YOUR actions most of the time. They are event driven.
So by what you're saying, on the average windows user, if i had 10 processors for each of my 10 tasks, all 10 processors would be spending 99% of their cpu time dormant.
Having 10 processors too, i have never seen a 'cheap' motherboard that can support 10 processors. In fact, i have never seen a commercial motherboard that even supports more than 3 processors.
And the number of tasks people run is never the same. I prefer to buy hardware seperately than buying a package pc, you get what you want, does that mean i have to consider what tasks im running, then but say 10 processors.
Then what happens when i want to run another task, do i have to buy another processor?
>> 2) If you think that giving 1 person, 10 jobs to do, Is better than 10 people doing 10 jobs.
Yes, i agree, its the most efficient solution but having 10 processors wouldn't be feasible without it being for a dedicated purpose. And knowing you're only running 10 tasks.
Consider the average Windows user, completely oblivious to computer terminology and technology. Do you really expect them to install their own processors when they need to run more tasks?
Moose.
-
ASHLEY4
RE:Frustrated....
Moose,what your saying is right , But i do not mean multi processor in one base.
I mean if you could buy small black box's, that have in them a small motherboard, 1GHz processor,some ram etc,and had wire-less usb and you could have as many as you liked in a network (cluster) and add one a mouth etc
Here is a link to what I'm on a bout,But on a smaller scale.
http://arrakis.ncsa.uiuc.edu/ps2/cluster.php
ASHLEY4.
I mean if you could buy small black box's, that have in them a small motherboard, 1GHz processor,some ram etc,and had wire-less usb and you could have as many as you liked in a network (cluster) and add one a mouth etc
Here is a link to what I'm on a bout,But on a smaller scale.
http://arrakis.ncsa.uiuc.edu/ps2/cluster.php
ASHLEY4.
-
TheUbu
RE:Frustrated....
Yes distributed computing....
However you are all missing bits and pieces of things here... CPUs are being designed better for handling multi task/threading. And since like what was stated before that a CPU is idle more often then not it is efficient for it to do several tasks up till the point where you have processes waiting however this is only true with pre-emptive scheduling if you go realtime well then you are not making super efficient use of your CPU. Plus good OS design will make better use of your CPU if you schedule better and make waiting tasks get skipped you will save CPU time by not executing X-amount of task switching code instructions..
There is however an advantage to multiple CPU systems but you have to look at your application home computing you can most definitely get away with a single CPU however having two would probably be a super performance increase to balance a load between waiting tasks but how often do you run and use multiple applications at the same time I'm sure not often at all...
Also how did we get off onto this tangent? And anyone here have web sites with screenshots of their OS and such I have some screen shots up at http://www.ubixos.com/~reddawg/
-Christopher
However you are all missing bits and pieces of things here... CPUs are being designed better for handling multi task/threading. And since like what was stated before that a CPU is idle more often then not it is efficient for it to do several tasks up till the point where you have processes waiting however this is only true with pre-emptive scheduling if you go realtime well then you are not making super efficient use of your CPU. Plus good OS design will make better use of your CPU if you schedule better and make waiting tasks get skipped you will save CPU time by not executing X-amount of task switching code instructions..
There is however an advantage to multiple CPU systems but you have to look at your application home computing you can most definitely get away with a single CPU however having two would probably be a super performance increase to balance a load between waiting tasks but how often do you run and use multiple applications at the same time I'm sure not often at all...
Also how did we get off onto this tangent?
And anyone here have web sites with screenshots of their OS and such I have some screen shots up at http://www.ubixos.com/~reddawg/-Christopher
-
ASHLEY4
RE:Frustrated....
You seem to have got alot further than most,Well done!
Are you going to stay in command line or are you going to move to a gui ?.
As for the offtopic,I have just shown you Y it is hard to get people to help, We all like different things.
ASHLEY4.
Are you going to stay in command line or are you going to move to a gui ?.
As for the offtopic,I have just shown you Y it is hard to get people to help, We all like different things.
ASHLEY4.
-
Anton
RE:Frustrated....
//2) If you think that giving 1 person, 10 jobs to do, Is better than 10
//people doing 10 jobs,then be a sheep!.
This question is asked incorrectly, since ofcourse it is better to give "10 people doing 10 jobs", but what is not mentioned here is that it will cost 10 times more!! It's like asking a quastion: would you rather buy a big or small house. Everything gose down to money. Think about it, all of your cpus will have there own ram(more money), motherboard(more money),... Now don't forget about the amount of electriciy that will be used(wasted), you would also need to by an extra air conditioner(since belive me-you will melt if you have other 10 computers running in one room(on the desk:) )) You should also consider your health-imagine the amplitude of the electro-magnetic field in your room--you would definetly need treatment after a couple of years.
And now to the arguments about the ideas itself: you can't think of anything worse then you said-the whole consept of multitasking is misunderstood. For mean- it is obvious, that running 3 tasks(cpu consuming) on a 3G cpu is much better then running 1 task per 1G CPU. Give me a break.
Distributed computing is need, when the power of the single cpu is not enough, and not when you need to spread scanty time consuming tasks, just becuase it will be fun to distribute them. I can garanty you, that if a single cpu was enough, no one would ever think of distributing the work, since what's the point of that-more work? If all companies had money to buy a supercomputer, then nobody in the world would need a cluster-it's obvious for me, strage to think that someone will think overwise.
Anton
PS. Ofcourse this idea is used, but nowhere close to an ordinary user: nuclear rockets( usualy have other 100 cpus), or nuclear power plants, or cars, or other hard REALTIME systems.
//people doing 10 jobs,then be a sheep!.
This question is asked incorrectly, since ofcourse it is better to give "10 people doing 10 jobs", but what is not mentioned here is that it will cost 10 times more!! It's like asking a quastion: would you rather buy a big or small house. Everything gose down to money. Think about it, all of your cpus will have there own ram(more money), motherboard(more money),... Now don't forget about the amount of electriciy that will be used(wasted), you would also need to by an extra air conditioner(since belive me-you will melt if you have other 10 computers running in one room(on the desk:) )) You should also consider your health-imagine the amplitude of the electro-magnetic field in your room--you would definetly need treatment after a couple of years.
And now to the arguments about the ideas itself: you can't think of anything worse then you said-the whole consept of multitasking is misunderstood. For mean- it is obvious, that running 3 tasks(cpu consuming) on a 3G cpu is much better then running 1 task per 1G CPU. Give me a break.
Distributed computing is need, when the power of the single cpu is not enough, and not when you need to spread scanty time consuming tasks, just becuase it will be fun to distribute them. I can garanty you, that if a single cpu was enough, no one would ever think of distributing the work, since what's the point of that-more work? If all companies had money to buy a supercomputer, then nobody in the world would need a cluster-it's obvious for me, strage to think that someone will think overwise.
Anton
PS. Ofcourse this idea is used, but nowhere close to an ordinary user: nuclear rockets( usualy have other 100 cpus), or nuclear power plants, or cars, or other hard REALTIME systems.
-
Anton
RE:Frustrated....
>it is hard to get people to help, We all like different things
It's not the matter of like or dislike, it is the matter of what is cheaper to implement and maintain to accomplish needed tasks. A distributed system is definitly harder to maintain then one comupter.
Anton.
It's not the matter of like or dislike, it is the matter of what is cheaper to implement and maintain to accomplish needed tasks. A distributed system is definitly harder to maintain then one comupter.
Anton.